All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3
-
So the general feeling about the town is that while it is a pity we didn't win, it was a hell of a series and a really good result for Rugby.
I don't disagree either.
The Lions fans have to be the best travelling fans of any sport?
I'm not too miffed about all that happened. If it was against England or Aussie or South Africa then I would be more gutted.
@Hooroo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
So the general feeling about the town is that while it is a pity we didn't win, it was a hell of a series and a really good result for Rugby.
I don't disagree either.
The Lions fans have to be the best travelling fans of any sport?
I'm not too miffed about all that happened. If it was against England or Aussie or South Africa then I would be more gutted.
I'm going to go a little against the grain here of the Fern wisdom - just a personal opinion so pitchforks can stay holstered. As someone who isn't over there soaking up the atmosphere, after the heady early days of the tour I've actually found this tour has broken my spirit for rugby a bit. I'm sure if I was there intermingling with the travelling fans and not just following online on forums and through the media my thoughts might be different.
Firstly the officiating, I know some people think we should rise above the officiating but that's a bullshit cop out, it should be held to account like everything else that happens out on the field - if we can moan about TJs flapping, Cruden existing, SBW being SBW, Fatty being unfairly/fairly picked on, etc etc then we can discuss the ref as well. As I've mentioned earlier in the thread I think the 'spirit' of the reffing switched between the 2nd and 3rd test (and even times within the 3rd test) and it negatively affected the ABs both times. The final test draw was worse than the 2nd test loss for me to take personally because of the bullshit at the end.
The tour also served up a bunch of negative rugby that was at times penalised and other times wasn't. The offside line was at various times policed and not policed. The ABs tries in the first test and the Lions counter attacks in the second should have been the takeaways from the tour but it was the negative play that overshadowed everything else. Both teams dished out a wee bit of dirty and or reckless play (IMHO and with my biases one team got penalised a bit more for it) that probably didn't need to happen. Oh and fuck Connor Murray and his ball rolling and fuck the refs for letting him do it (Smith also did it on occasion as well in the 3rd test).
The Lions management chipping in the media was annoying. As noted above the Lions played right on and over the borderline of the laws throughout the test series yet they spent a bunch of time moaning about the ABs tactics to the media and refs. It's like they don't own a mirror. The moaning about blockers was particularly annoying as they were consistently guilty of the same tactics. Speaking of blocking, in the 2nd test BBBR was penalised, a penalty that gained the Lions 3 points, for an act that happened throughout the 3 test series on both sides.
The media just did my head in on this tour - and that's really only through posters linking to it on here. How come all rugby media is just trolling? From both sides.
Should we have won the series? Yes. Would it have made my thoughts any different? Probably, I guess we'll never know, a few less dropped balls, a couple less injuries, a couple of not dropped on their head French babies and I might be singing a different tune.
-
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale So that's still a penalty right?
No, I don't think so. I'm surmising here. If Poite is saying to Read that the ball hit Owens first on the shoulder then that is accidental offside. Handling it is secondary.
That's my assumption of what transpired. I can't see another reason as to why he would say that to Read when Read queried it.
@Pot-Hale said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@canefan said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
@Pot-Hale So that's still a penalty right?
No, I don't think so. I'm surmising here. If Poite is saying to Read that the ball hit Owens first on the shoulder then that is accidental offside. Handling it is secondary.
The ball doesn't hit Owens in the shoulder. He catches it, in an offside position.
-
Anyone notice when they showed Farrell's career kicking stats during the 3rd test. His career average was in the low 70% although he was trucking well for the series. Interesting given the commentary on BB.
-
Anyone notice when they showed Farrell's career kicking stats during the 3rd test. His career average was in the low 70% although he was trucking well for the series. Interesting given the commentary on BB.
@Paekakboyz I thought his career average was about 71%?
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
-
Another thing under Ritchies reign was that the team would always stay composed in that pressure situation (The learnings from 2007 apparently)
It looks as though if we aren't smashing a team we are in panick mode a bit.
@Hooroo said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
Another thing under Ritchies reign was that the team would always stay composed in that pressure situation (The learnings from 2007 apparently)
It looks as though if we aren't smashing a team we are in panick mode a bit.
This.
It needs to be worked on.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian nicely written article mate, and i agree with a heap of it. In fact, your overall conclusion isn't that much different to here.
However i don't think we ended up in the "right" decision. I don't think i have ever seen catching the ball (no matter how instinctive) not given as a penalty, and yet here he decided to go that way.
I've also never seen a penalty call changed after the bloke has had another look, and bit of a chat, and a think.
The whole thing fucking stinks. And it's really fucking annoying we as AB fans aren't allowed to think so with out having "blaming the ref for a loss" or "the ABs are usually favoured anyway so suck it up" thrown at us (the comments on your article look like they are on the bottom of a Stuff angle, jesus some people are piston wristed gibbons).
But, i did like your article, it was a pretty fair view of the whole process, and as you say, i guess a grey enough area for you to reach a different conclusion (even if it's wrong
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
Nah.
I don't think it should be the defining point of the test.
But, He made a meal of it.
The only way he gets that right is either:
- the whistle never goes near his mouth and it is play on
- once he blows the whistle he sticks to his guns, not look for ways to overturn his correct decision.
I've got to admit he bottled it. In slo mo.
I'd be forgiving if he made a mistake in real time like Joubert in RWC 1/4 final. If you can even call Joubert's a mistake.But that was a painful slo mo car crash.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
It's this kind of utter hypocrisy that shits me no end. I'm not going to read your article but I'll take it to the bank that if this had happened to the Wallabies there is no fucking way you'd reckon the ref "got it right". Your much admired coach would also have smashed the glass in front of him and likely needed to be restrained from attacking Poite.
You're a good bloke Barbarian, but this is a straight up fucking troll.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian Mate, you are pretty much the only shining light on that godforsaken website, but I have to disagree with you on this one.
Even if for arguments sake you were correct on the call by Poite, his failure to play advantage was terrible referring and more than likely cost ALB a try.
-
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I reckon Poite got it right. Now I expect that to go down on here like a glass of warm urine, but nonetheless I feel like I can back it up.
I also think it's fair that AB fans feel a bit aggrieved. I would if it happened to the Wallabies. For me it was a genuine 50/50 call, with a lot of grey areas. I've written more about it here if you are really desperate for more (the comments are quite interesting).
At the very least, his decision to call a scrum is justifiable under law 11. It's miles from a Wayne Barnes forward pass scenario, or even a Bryce Lawrence at the 2011 RWC QF scenario.
It's a fascinating discussion once you remove the emotion. Really comes back to the idea of intent and what it is to 'play the ball'.
Sorry @barbarian but your article quotes the wrong laws. There's a specific law for offside from a knock on. You've quoted laws from 11.1 - Offside in general play and 11.6 - Accidental offside.
The only law that comes into play here is 11.7 Offside after a knock-on as that is what happened.
That states:
When a player knocks-on and an offside team-mate next plays the ball, the offside player is liable to sanction if playing the ball prevented an opponent from gaining an advantage.So all we have to consider is:
- Did he play at the ball? Unquestionably yes, he caught it.
- Did he prevent the opponent from gaining an advantage? Unquestionably yes, he stopped the All Black players coming through from regaining possession immediately. ALB did well to seize the opportunity after he dropped it but that doesn't change the fact he stopped us from regaining it sooner.
That is what Read was trying to say to Poite - accidental offside doesn't come into play from a knock on. It has it's own separate law and that has been ruled consistently for as long as I've watched rugby. Players realising too late that they've played at a ball that was knocked on happens all the time - that doesn't change the decision.
-
@barbarian nicely written article mate, and i agree with a heap of it. In fact, your overall conclusion isn't that much different to here.
However i don't think we ended up in the "right" decision. I don't think i have ever seen catching the ball (no matter how instinctive) not given as a penalty, and yet here he decided to go that way.
I've also never seen a penalty call changed after the bloke has had another look, and bit of a chat, and a think.
The whole thing fucking stinks. And it's really fucking annoying we as AB fans aren't allowed to think so with out having "blaming the ref for a loss" or "the ABs are usually favoured anyway so suck it up" thrown at us (the comments on your article look like they are on the bottom of a Stuff angle, jesus some people are piston wristed gibbons).
But, i did like your article, it was a pretty fair view of the whole process, and as you say, i guess a grey enough area for you to reach a different conclusion (even if it's wrong
@mariner4life What? The conclusion is definitely wrong. Owens played at the ball. He caught the fucking thing. That's not accidental offside where;
- your own teammate ball carrier runs into you from behind, or
- you are touched by a ball last played by a team-mate behind you,
That is accidental offside.
If you touch a ball last played by a team-mate behind you, whether intentional, instinctively or unintentionally, that is offside.
He was offside in general play and as per 11.1 Offside in general play the sanction is a penalty kick.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
-
What did people think of Liam Williams running into Dagg?
Behind our pathetic counter ruck, this was next most annoyed I got in the game.
Spend 3 weeks planting obstruction stories via the media then run straight at a player without the ball. Cynical. Diving in the box levels of cheatiness.
After TMO taking the effort to check it, I was mighty annoyed it wasn't an nz penalty for either foul play or professional foul.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Which would be fine if he did that in real time.
But he made about 3 mistakes, each compounding the other, as soon as he let himself be talked into going to the TMO.
-
@barbarian I can see the argument you are making, but trying to work out whether a player meant to catch a ball is going down an incredibly subjective route - you pretty much have to be a mind reader. If he catches it, he played at it. If he makes no attempt to catch it, he didn't. Granted when he caught the ball he wasn't immediately aware he was offside, but he still caught it. I could easily make an argument that a smarter player would have been running back onside with his hands in the air.
It's been ruled that way forever, and from here on it will continue to be ruled that way. To change the way it is ruled for one penalty just because it will decide a game is outrageously inconsistent.
-
-
What did people think of Liam Williams running into Dagg?
Behind our pathetic counter ruck, this was next most annoyed I got in the game.
Spend 3 weeks planting obstruction stories via the media then run straight at a player without the ball. Cynical. Diving in the box levels of cheatiness.
After TMO taking the effort to check it, I was mighty annoyed it wasn't an nz penalty for either foul play or professional foul.
@Rapido For me the most annoying thing was Webb throwing the ball into Crockett to milk the penalty. Most SH refs wouldn't have penalised Crockett for that. Another annoying thing was the failure of the officials to review Sexton's head high on Barrett. Much worse than Kaino's tackle.
But nothing annoys me more than our own inability to finish all the chances we created.
-
I argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well. It was a purely instinctive move (like shielding youself from a kick) and as soon as he realised he put his hands in the air.
Poite's mistake was not playing advantage. I don't agree that it 'cost the ABs a try', but it did cost them a solid attacking opportunity. If he had played advantage, he could have negated the calls for a penalty because it would be clear the Lions gained no advantage from Owens play.
I can totally understand the arguments you make, and I can see how you can come to the conclusion that Owens 'played the ball'. I don't think what he did constitutes that, and I think Poite was fair enough to give him the benefit of the doubt.
@barbarian said in All Blacks v BI Lions Test #3:
argue that Owens did not 'play the ball', which is covered in 11.7 as well.
He caught the ball = He played at it.
It's that simple.
